Related Links

EDITORIAL: Traffic light cameras prove unfair to drivers

Published: Sunday, July 7, 2013 at 3:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, July 5, 2013 at 6:43 p.m.

It’s amazing how persistent a bad idea can be. The city of Tuscaloosa has long delayed installing and using traffic light cameras and has had ample time to back away. Indeed, for a variety of reasons, a growing number of cities are moving away from using traffic light cameras.

But Tuscaloosa stubbornly insists on forging ahead despite a multitude of reasons it shouldn’t. For those who don’t know and may find out the hard way, traffic light cameras take photographs of the tags of automobiles that allegedly run red lights.

One day, the car’s owner, who might not even have been the driver at the time, receives a ticket in the mail with a demand to pay it. The fine could be as much as $110.

The cameras are owned and operated by a private contractor that gets 30 percent of the fines levied. Thus arises the first conflict of interest. The more tickets the cameras issue, the more money the contractor and the city will receive.

The contractor is not doing this out of the goodness of its corporate heart. The contractor has no vested interest in whether Tuscaloosa’s streets become safer. It’s in the contractor’s best interest to issue as many tickets as possible. It doesn’t take an overly skeptical mind to figure out what’s wrong with this picture.

City police officers are supposed to review video before tickets are mailed to drivers. Of course, the city is getting 70 percent of the revenue generated by the traffic cameras, so a conflict arises again.

City officials have long argued that this isn’t a money-making venture. At first, they said the cost of the equipment, maintenance and the personnel to run the system would make it a money loser. But that is no longer the case, because the city decided to go with a contractor, and it has no investment in equipment or maintenance.

If it’s true that the city isn’t interested in the money, then we have a suggestion. Give the money it collects from fines to local schools to help them pay for drivers’ education programs.

But we’d much rather the city give up on the idea of collecting fines from drivers through an automated process. The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to face their accuser. The accuser has to be a person, not a machine.

The city skirted constitutional requirements by making violations civil and not criminal. Tickets won’t show up on drivers’ records and allegedly won’t affect their insurance rates. And drivers can request a hearing in municipal court and then appeal to circuit court. But with a system already weighted against drivers, we doubt they will have much faith in an appeals process.

We understand that it’s a serious matter when a driver runs a traffic light. It creates an extremely dangerous situation. But we believe the city should combat violators with traditional law enforcement and a system that affords the accused with appropriate due process.

<p>It's amazing how persistent a bad idea can be. The city of Tuscaloosa has long delayed installing and using traffic light cameras and has had ample time to back away. Indeed, for a variety of reasons, a growing number of cities are moving away from using traffic light cameras.</p><p>But Tuscaloosa stubbornly insists on forging ahead despite a multitude of reasons it shouldn't. For those who don't know and may find out the hard way, traffic light cameras take photographs of the tags of automobiles that allegedly run red lights.</p><p>One day, the car's owner, who might not even have been the driver at the time, receives a ticket in the mail with a demand to pay it. The fine could be as much as $110.</p><p>The cameras are owned and operated by a private contractor that gets 30 percent of the fines levied. Thus arises the first conflict of interest. The more tickets the cameras issue, the more money the contractor and the city will receive.</p><p>The contractor is not doing this out of the goodness of its corporate heart. The contractor has no vested interest in whether Tuscaloosa's streets become safer. It's in the contractor's best interest to issue as many tickets as possible. It doesn't take an overly skeptical mind to figure out what's wrong with this picture.</p><p>City police officers are supposed to review video before tickets are mailed to drivers. Of course, the city is getting 70 percent of the revenue generated by the traffic cameras, so a conflict arises again.</p><p>City officials have long argued that this isn't a money-making venture. At first, they said the cost of the equipment, maintenance and the personnel to run the system would make it a money loser. But that is no longer the case, because the city decided to go with a contractor, and it has no investment in equipment or maintenance.</p><p>If it's true that the city isn't interested in the money, then we have a suggestion. Give the money it collects from fines to local schools to help them pay for drivers' education programs.</p><p>But we'd much rather the city give up on the idea of collecting fines from drivers through an automated process. The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to face their accuser. The accuser has to be a person, not a machine.</p><p>The city skirted constitutional requirements by making violations civil and not criminal. Tickets won't show up on drivers' records and allegedly won't affect their insurance rates. And drivers can request a hearing in municipal court and then appeal to circuit court. But with a system already weighted against drivers, we doubt they will have much faith in an appeals process.</p><p>We understand that it's a serious matter when a driver runs a traffic light. It creates an extremely dangerous situation. But we believe the city should combat violators with traditional law enforcement and a system that affords the accused with appropriate due process.</p>